alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018399EN.01005101.xml

| 5.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/51

---

Action brought on 17 September 2018 — Wanda Films and Wanda Visión v EUIPO — Dalian Wanda Group Co. (wanda films)

(Case T-542/18)

(2018/C 399/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Wanda Films, SL (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) and Wanda Visión, SA (Pozuelo de Alarcón) (represented by: C. Planas Silva, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dalian Wanda Group Co. Ltd (Dalian, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Wanda Films, SL

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark wanda films — Application for registration No 13 902 994

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2018 in Case R 829/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | admit the present application, the arguments and documents (including the ones presented with this application and the ones presented by the applicant during the opposition and appeal proceedings); |
| --- | --- |

—

admit the present application, the arguments and documents (including the ones presented with this application and the ones presented by the applicant during the opposition and appeal proceedings);

| — | override the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

override the contested decision;

| — | issue a decision that admits the registration of the figurative trademark defended by the applicant with the present application. |
| --- | --- |

—

issue a decision that admits the registration of the figurative trademark defended by the applicant with the present application.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18E0013. TAYLOR v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of Appellant William Taylor’s motion for an extension of

time to file an application for discretionary appeal, it is hereby ordered that the

motion is DENIED. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

September 27, 2017

09/27/2017
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7322
RAY THOMAS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LLOYD L. WATERS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-413-MJG) Submitted: February 12, 2004 Decided: February 20, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ray Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Ann Rapp Ince, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Ray Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). By failing to assert on appeal any of the claims that were raised and rejected by the district court, Thomas has failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and has waived his right to challenge the district court’s denial of § 2254 relief. 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Moreover, we decline to address the issues Thomas raises for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States , 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that claims raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered absent exceptional circumstances).- 3 - Accordingly, we deny a certifi cate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32     Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each ofthe undersigned officers of Potash Corporation of SaskatchewanInc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to suchofficer’s knowledge, that:     This Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2004 (the“Form 10-K/A”), of the Company fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained inthis Amendment No. 1 fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company.Dated: April 22, 2005             /s/ William J. Doyle             William J. Doyle    *President and Chief Executive Officer*Dated: April 22, 2005             /s/ Wayne R. Brownlee             Wayne R. Brownlee    *Senior Vice President, Treasurer, and*
Distribution
Agreement - Entranet Limited & Entranet Inc.


 





This Agreement is effective this 30th
day of June, 2014 (“Effective Date”), by and between Entranet Limited, a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of Greece (“Manufacturer”), and Entranet Incorporated, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the United States (“Distributor”).


 


WITNESSETH


 


WHEREAS Manufacturer wishes to appoint Distributor
to sell the Product in the United States and Europe, and Distributor is willing and able to import, promote, distribute, and sell
Product under the Trademarks in the United States and Europe.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, under ARTICLE
XIX of the Distribution Agreement, intending to be legally bound agree to AMEND
the following:


 


The sole purpose of this addendum is to include
the distribution of Entranet Limited products and services, a company formed under the laws of Greece, in Europe by Entranet, Inc.,
a corporation formed under the laws of the United States. The following provision have been modified to include the territorial
area Europe.


 


1.1 Product or Products means any and all
Entranet Limited products and services available to the U.S. and European markets under this agreement and the laws of the
U.S.


 


4.1 Distributor shall register the Product
with the regulatory authorities of the United States and applicable European nations, if necessary.


 


5.1 Distributor agrees that Manufacturer
shall be Distributor’s sole supplier of Products and agrees that it will distribute only Products in the United States
and Europe purchased from Manufacturer.


 


8.1 Distributor undertakes at its own expense
to actively promote the Products in the United States by the best legal and appropriate means and to retain appropriate sales staff
and representatives to assure an effective promotion of the Products. Distributor shall further place, at its own expense, promotional
advertisement and marketing materials for on the Products.


 


10.3 Distributor agrees to use its best efforts
to successfully market and distribute Products


from Manufacturer in the United States and
Europe on a continuing basis during the term of this Agreement and to comply with good business practices and all laws and
regulations relevant to this Agreement or the subject matter hereof.


 


Any and all other provisions made not listed
above to this Agreement shall only be valid if they are dually recognized as to include the territorial distribution of Europe
by Entranet, Inc.










 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused these presents
to be executed in triplicate by their duly authorized officers.


 





	For Manufacturer: Entranet Limited	 	For Distributor: Entranet
Incorporated
	
        /s/ Eleftherios Papageorgiou
	
        
	

        /s/ Eleftherios Papageorgiou

	By: Eleftherios Papageorgiou	 	By: Eleftherios Papageorgiou
	Date: 6/30/2014	 	Date: 6/30/2014
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 833 

Recommending the designation of the first Wednesday of December as 

‘‘Government Customer Service Day’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 14, 2016 

Mr. CUELLAR submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Recommending the designation of the first Wednesday of 

December as ‘‘Government Customer Service Day’’. 

Whereas the business of Government is the business of customer service; 

Whereas polls show the majority of citizens have a negative 

view of Government; 

Whereas polls show the majority of citizens believe the Federal Government can improve customer service; 

Whereas polls show that quality service delivery increases citizen trust in Government; 

Whereas the Government owes taxpayers effective, efficient, 

and responsible government; 

Whereas the GPRA Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–352) resulted in a cross-agency priority goal of delivering worldVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:02 Jul 15, 2016 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR833.IH HR833

smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 833 IH 

class customer service to citizens by making it faster and 

easier for individuals and businesses to complete transactions and have a positive experience with the Government; 

Whereas the GPRA Act of 2010 resulted in President Obama 

issuing an executive order in 2011 to improve the quality 

of Government service to the public; 

Whereas there are an untold number of hard working and 

dedicated Federal employees who are delivering exceptional customer service every day without getting the recognition they deserve; and 

Whereas the first Wednesday of December should be designated as ‘‘Government Customer Service Day’’: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) encourages the executive branch to find in3 novative ways to instill a culture of customer cen4 tered service; and 

5 (2) encourages each agency to recognize em6 ployees who deliver outstanding levels of service to 

7 the public. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 108 (Wednesday, July 18, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1279]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  RECOGNIZING THE LIFE AND PUBLIC SERVICE OF EVERETT ``BUD'' RANK, JR.

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. DEVIN NUNES

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 18, 2012

  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I rise to today to recognize the life and 
work of Everett ``Bud'' Rank, Jr., who passed away on June 3, 2012. He 
will not only go down in history as a former member of both the Nixon 
and Reagan Administrations' Agriculture Departments, but as an avid 
golfer, ardent family man, and longtime Valley rancher.
  Bud was a lifelong Fresno resident. He was born on December 1, 1921 
and attended Clovis High School before fighting in World War II for 
four years as a gunner's mate in the South Pacific. After the war, Bud 
returned to his roots in Fresno to help organize the Clovis chapter of 
the Future Farmers of America; where he later served as president.
  Bud's passion for agriculture was reflected by the time and effort he 
contributed to the many organizations he was a part of. He was a member 
of the California Farm Bureau Young Farmers and Ranchers, the Clovis 
Grange, the International Cotton Advisory Committee, the Sierra Soil 
and Water Conservation District, and many others. Bud worked within the 
Agriculture Department, first as Western Regional Director of 
Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service, then as both head 
of the ASCS and Executive Vice President of the Commodity Credit Corp.
  While his commitment to the San Joaquin Valley agricultural community 
was unmatched, Bud's commitment to education was equally impressive. He 
wanted each student to have every opportunity to thrive in school and 
reach the highest level of education possible. He did this by serving 
three terms as the President of the Clovis Unified School District 
Board of Trustees in the 1960s and early 1970s. His contribution and 
impact on the community are now honored and remembered though the Bud 
Rank Elementary School in Clovis.
  Bud was a legendary community leader. He cared greatly about the 
future of the San Joaquin Valley residents and youth. He leaves behind 
a legacy that will be hard to equal. The people of Fresno will miss Bud 
for years to come, but will never forget all that he gave and did for 
the people of Fresno County.

                          ____________________
```
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 21

- 50141 Summary Calendar

United States of America,
Plaintiff

— Appellee ,

versus
Ryan Clint Frazier,
Defendant

— Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:20

- CR

- 207

- 1

Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : *
The attorney appointed to represent Ryan Clint Frazier has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Frazier has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 17, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-50141 Document: 00516322650 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/17/2022No. 21

- 50141

2 relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED

. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2

. Case: 21-50141 Document: 00516322650 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/17/2022
**Exhibit 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration StatementNo. 333-113590 on Form S-3 and Nos. 33-35357, 333-104249 and 333-80577, all on Form S-8, of our report dated March 16, 2005,relating to the financial statements of Giant Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the“Company”) (which report expresses an unqualified opinion andincludes an explanatory paragraph relating to change in accounting method for the adoption ofStatement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 143, “Asset Retirement Obligations” in2003), our report dated March 16, 2005 relating to the financialstatement schedules of the Company, and to our report datedMarch 16, 2005 relating to management’sreport on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing inthe Annual Report on Form 10K of the Company for the Year ended December 31, 2004.
/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Phoenix, Arizona
# C_2010051EN.01000901.xml

| 27.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 December 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia (Italy)) — Serrantoni Srl, Consorzio stabile edili Scrl v Comune di Milano

(Case C-376/08) (1)

1

(Public works contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Articles 43 EC and 49 EC - Principle of equal treatment - Groups of undertakings - Prohibition on competing participation in the same tendering procedure by a ‘consorzio stabile’ (‘permanent consortium’) and one of its member companies)

2010/C 51/13

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Serrantoni Srl, Consorzio stabile edili Scrl

Applicants:

Defendant: Comune di Milano

Defendant:

Intervening parties: Bora Srl Construzioni edili, Unione consorzi stabili Italia (UCSI), Associazione nazionale imprese edili (ANIEM),

Intervening parties:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Interpretation of Articles 39 EC, 43 EC, 49 EC and 81 EC and of Article 4 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — National legislation providing for the automatic exclusion of member companies of a consortium of economic operators, where the consortium itself participates in the procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Community law must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such at that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that, when a public contract is being awarded, with a value below the threshold laid down in Article 7(c) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, but of certain cross-border interest, both a permanent consortium and its member companies are automatically excluded from participating in that procedure and face criminal sanctions where those companies have submitted tenders in competition with the consortium’s tender in the context of the same procedure, even if the consortium’s tender was not submitted on behalf and in the interests of those companies.

---

(1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.

1

---
Order entered August 8, 2013

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 00496

- CR

AQUILINO ABONZA MEDI NA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial C ourt Cause No. MB10

- 31605

- B



### O RDER

Appellant’s August 5, 2013 motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief is

GRANTED . The time to file appellant’s brief is EXTENDED to THIRTY DAYS from the

date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEPTEMBER 2, 2011

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-15463

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-00380-CR-T-30-TGW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHARLES ANDREW FOWLER,

a.k.a. Man,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(September 2, 2011)

ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

Before EDMONDSON, BARKETT, and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

*

 Honorable Judge Jane R. Roth, United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, sitting *

by designation.
PER CURIAM:

Charles Andrew Fowler appealed his conviction for murder with the intent

to prevent a person from communicating information about a federal offense to a

federal law enforcement officer or judge of the United States, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(C). We affirmed Fowler’s conviction on the ground that the

evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support a finding that the victim

witnessed Fowler and his accomplices while they were preparing to commit, or had

just committed, federal crimes, and that a federal investigation was possible.

United States v. Fowler, 603 F.3d 883 (11th Cir. 2010).

The Supreme Court granted Fowler’s petition for writ of certiorari and

reversed, holding that for a conviction under § 1512(a)(1)(C), the Government

must show more than a mere possibility of communication with a federal law

enforcement officer, but “must show a reasonable likelihood that, had, e.g., the

victim communicated with law enforcement officers, at least one relevant

communication would have been made to a federal law enforcement officer.”

Fowler v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2045, 2052 (2011).

In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, we vacate our prior opinion in this

case, United States v. Fowler, 603 F.3d 883 (11th Cir. 2010), and remand to the

district court so that it may consider, in the first instance, the following question:

2
Whether the evidence presented at the Defendant’s trial was sufficient

under Fowler v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2045 (2011), to show a

reasonable likelihood that, had the victim communicated with law

enforcement officers, at least one of the relevant communications

would have been made to a federal officer.

PRIOR DECISION VACATED; and REMANDED.

3